- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 47,052
- Reaction score
- 22,917
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
"Black Lives Matter" is a movement involving issues including systemic state racism and wrongful police violence.
Let's put aside the people who actually oppose that movement, and just assume they are wrong.
This topic is about where the line is drawn on other things that might be considered offensive about BLM and how fine that line can be.
How about the phrase "All Lives Matter"? It's not literally wrong, but it's - rightly in my opinion - seen as an attack on the claim that there is discrimination against black people in particular. By attacking that claim, it's seen as offensive despite being literally quite reasonable, in another context than attacking BLM.
"Blue Lives Matter" is similar - it should be pretty universal to support the law-abiding police, but when it's said in a context of being in opposition to BLM, that's what makes it offensive. It also sets up a false choice as if police and black people are on different sides, when the issue is *wrongful* violence and discrimination.
But those are just prefatory examples, the one that hit the line to trigger this thread is, I saw an advertisement from a company that sells food from restaurants, highlighting a black chef those food it sells with the phrase "Black Food Matters!"
Now, that's being a bit cute, but it's also arguably trivializing and pretty inarguably commercializing the BLM name. Is it not offensive, because it's promoting a black chef? Or is it offensive anyway, because it's trivializing the issues into an ad slogan for food sales and for a company to make a buck off it?
You could adjust your answer if you feel it being 'Black History Month' is relevant - a pretty tenuous claim - but should BLM be viewed as simple 'anything that might help a black person a little can use the BLM slogan to promote it, even if the primary beneficiary is a white-owned company?'
It's quite a topic trying to determine where 'offensive' lines are drawn. I'm imagining a star NFL black receiver marketed with the phrase 'Black touchdowns matter!'. On and on there are examples raising this question.
One argument is that any such 'trivializations' should be objected to, to try to help the movement be more effective on the issues it's about.
Another argument is more casual, with a bit of 'who cares' and 'if someone benefits from it, so what?'
I'd argue there IS a line - imagine Coca Cola putting out an ad saying 'great tasting drinks matter!' showing a staged BLM protest with every protester smiling and holding a Coca Cola drink, as well as the police officers dong security, as they all smile at each other - but where it is isn't so easy.
It does get a bit uncomfortable for some if it becomes, 'anything benefiting a black person is fine for trivializing the phrase, but white people don't touch it with a ten foot pole except complete deference'.
Marketers are notorious for disrespecting things at times to 'make a buck', if they can get away with it. There are things recognized to stay away from - say, commercializing the Pope too much, attempts at humor involving abortion, and so on - but there are plenty of 'bad taste' ads also.
The reverse is also true - for example, when advertisers have to choose between backlash from racists by including non-white people in ads versus non-racist people if they don't include non-white people, or when they appeal to those who support a gay people in an ad or appeal to people who are against gay people by not including them.
I guess one capitalist answer would be to create separate brands to cater to each, but not really practical usually. But I'm digressing from this topic, of where the line is drawn on variations of "Black Lives Matter' being offensive or acceptable.
Let's put aside the people who actually oppose that movement, and just assume they are wrong.
This topic is about where the line is drawn on other things that might be considered offensive about BLM and how fine that line can be.
How about the phrase "All Lives Matter"? It's not literally wrong, but it's - rightly in my opinion - seen as an attack on the claim that there is discrimination against black people in particular. By attacking that claim, it's seen as offensive despite being literally quite reasonable, in another context than attacking BLM.
"Blue Lives Matter" is similar - it should be pretty universal to support the law-abiding police, but when it's said in a context of being in opposition to BLM, that's what makes it offensive. It also sets up a false choice as if police and black people are on different sides, when the issue is *wrongful* violence and discrimination.
But those are just prefatory examples, the one that hit the line to trigger this thread is, I saw an advertisement from a company that sells food from restaurants, highlighting a black chef those food it sells with the phrase "Black Food Matters!"
Now, that's being a bit cute, but it's also arguably trivializing and pretty inarguably commercializing the BLM name. Is it not offensive, because it's promoting a black chef? Or is it offensive anyway, because it's trivializing the issues into an ad slogan for food sales and for a company to make a buck off it?
You could adjust your answer if you feel it being 'Black History Month' is relevant - a pretty tenuous claim - but should BLM be viewed as simple 'anything that might help a black person a little can use the BLM slogan to promote it, even if the primary beneficiary is a white-owned company?'
It's quite a topic trying to determine where 'offensive' lines are drawn. I'm imagining a star NFL black receiver marketed with the phrase 'Black touchdowns matter!'. On and on there are examples raising this question.
One argument is that any such 'trivializations' should be objected to, to try to help the movement be more effective on the issues it's about.
Another argument is more casual, with a bit of 'who cares' and 'if someone benefits from it, so what?'
I'd argue there IS a line - imagine Coca Cola putting out an ad saying 'great tasting drinks matter!' showing a staged BLM protest with every protester smiling and holding a Coca Cola drink, as well as the police officers dong security, as they all smile at each other - but where it is isn't so easy.
It does get a bit uncomfortable for some if it becomes, 'anything benefiting a black person is fine for trivializing the phrase, but white people don't touch it with a ten foot pole except complete deference'.
Marketers are notorious for disrespecting things at times to 'make a buck', if they can get away with it. There are things recognized to stay away from - say, commercializing the Pope too much, attempts at humor involving abortion, and so on - but there are plenty of 'bad taste' ads also.
The reverse is also true - for example, when advertisers have to choose between backlash from racists by including non-white people in ads versus non-racist people if they don't include non-white people, or when they appeal to those who support a gay people in an ad or appeal to people who are against gay people by not including them.
I guess one capitalist answer would be to create separate brands to cater to each, but not really practical usually. But I'm digressing from this topic, of where the line is drawn on variations of "Black Lives Matter' being offensive or acceptable.
